ANNUAL BENEFIT INCREASE?

racyguy

leeCal said:

She has said she is committed to the triplelock this very day and is in agreement with the chancellor who was sitting next to her!

She may well and probably be in favour of it happening - but that is her view only.
The Chancellor will decide what is going to happen not her. You wouldn't expect a sweet shop owner telling their bank manager what to do. 

racyguy

woodbine said:

 

Grateful to a tory chancellor...not for a dozen life times, I take you back to 2010 when Cameron cobbled together a govt with the lib-dumps, his then chancellor promise to eradicate the deficit by 2015 didn't happen and will never happen.

Many benefits have been slowly reduced in value over the last 12 years, as have public sector workers and others, hence all the strikes.
The triple lock will be applied this year, you only have to understand why it was last year to know that.

As for benefits she faces a rebellion from her own MP's if she doesn't increase them by 10.1% even a cabinet minister says they should be.
As for borrowing whats another few billion when we owe 2.5 trillion?
One final point every single penny you increase benefits by finds it's way back into the economy thats EVERY SINGLE PENNY.

Cameron had no choice, that was because us, the population voted for a hung government. Blame those that voted for it.
Benefits should be an 'absolute last resort'. The attraction of deciding to not work or work for low wages had to be removed. It should never be a case that a benefit claimant receives anything like the same of similar of a worker on the NMW. 
Public sector employees are well provided for by way of one of the best pensions around. That has to be viewed alongside salaries.
It's not the MP's who will cause issue it's nothing when compared to what may happen through the finance industry and international money markets if over the top increases are given out that the market does not agree with.

leeCal

Knowing that she is at present in a precarious position she would not have said that she is committed to the triple lock in front of her chancellor today unless it was going to be enacted. It was a deliberate statement meant to quell any rebellion by her own mps.  I am positive that the triple lock on pensions will be honoured therefore.

calcotti

racyguy said: Surely no one should be expecting the triple lock to remain in place this year - it's far too expensive.

But Truss has clearly implied, by stating her support for the Triple Lock, that it will be in place. The media have clearly interpreted her statement to mean that (although, as per my earlier post, I wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out differently).

racyguy

Biblioklept said:

Very rare anyone would 'decide' not to work or 'decides' to work for a low wage. Why would anyone? 
Jobs pay too little. Minimum wage is too little. 
There's also more people claiming Universal Credit that are in work than out of it. 

OK so why is there now a mad scramble to find another 4 hours of work a week so as to maintain their maximum UC entitlement?
Those who worked the 'minimum' 12 hours a week are now desperate to find the additional hours. 
Why not look for a 40 hour a week job instead so as to reduce their entitlement?

calcotti

Biblioklept said:There's also more people claiming Universal Credit that are in work than out of it. 

That isn't correct. It fluctuates around 40% of UC claimants that are in work. It was 41% in June 2022. See
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/universal-credit-statistics-29-april-2013-to-14-july-2022/universal-credit-statistics-29-april-2013-to-14-july-2022

racyguy

calcotti said:

Biblioklept said:There's also more people claiming Universal Credit that are in work than out of it. 

That isn't correct. It fluctuates around 40% of UC claimants that are in work. It was 41% in June 2022. See
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/universal-credit-statistics-29-april-2013-to-14-july-2022/universal-credit-statistics-29-april-2013-to-14-july-2022

I wonder how many of that percentage were working the bare minimum of 12 hours a week.

racyguy

I know of one single mum of 3 children who wanted to reduce her working hours from 35 to 12 hours a week in order to maximise her net income and have more time at home. The employer refused but offered her 25 hours a week. She turned the offer down and left. She then found a part time job in a supermarket for 12 hours a week and was a 'happy lamb'.
Now I hear she is asking her employer to increase her hours to 16 hours a week!

racyguy

woodbine said:

Because they may simply not be able to work 40 hours a week for a long list of reasons.

But in the case of the woman I know she was working 35 hours a week and still could if she wanted to.
She doesn't have any child caring duties - all 3 children are in senior school. What I do know is that she enjoys a shorter working week yet takes home a similar income made up of earnings + UC. Effectively she was enjoying a good work/life balance thanks to the benefit system.

RetroRemix

Well, she's not doing anybody else any harm, and it's an extra person to help people out in the shop if they want to find anything or have items scanned, instead of a having to deal with a self service till that freaks out on them when it wants to!

And with 3 children at senior school, she is probably of the age now of wanting to wind down her hours until she is of the age she gets her pension?

And also raising children was probably already pretty exhausting for her already, along with her previous 35 hour a week job... so that would put more on her being worn out.

calcotti

Teddybear12 said: If she is allowed to claim benefits why should she not.

I believe raceguy is proposing that benefit entitlement should be more restricted,

racyguy

RetroRemix said:

Well, she's not doing anybody else any harm, and it's an extra person to help people out in the shop if they want to find anything or have items scanned, instead of a having to deal with a self service till that freaks out on them when it wants to!

And with 3 children at senior school, she is probably of the age now of wanting to wind down her hours until she is of the age she gets her pension?

And also raising children was probably already pretty exhausting for her already, along with her previous 35 hour a week job... so that would put more on her being worn out.

She is taking money from the State and is well able to earn her own money. The way she looks at it is why work an extra 20 hours or so when she could get the same income or similar income using the benefit system.
I always thought that the welfare system was for people who needed it, not wanted it.

racyguy

woodbine said:

I can't comment on someones circumstances that I don't know and even if I did it wouldn't be my business, you can I'm afraid come across as someone who is very bitter about what people do or don't get from the benefits system.

Not bitter at all just annoyed. It should never be a case that you could choose to claim benefits when you could work full time. Whilst I no longer pay a huge amount of tax each month, I still pay it. I think that in this woman's case she should be told to go back to work full time.

racyguy

Biblioklept said:

 You could put that time and energy into your own claim. 

Are you willing to offer hours every month of unpaid work to ensure that a Pension Credit claim that I could make is kept up to date with changes in circumstances?

racyguy

Biblioklept said:

It's not unpaid if the result is pension credit and then the council tax support as a result  

It is unpaid when you have to spend that amount of time just to keep the benefit payments going and to avoid having compliance/fraud investigations every couple of years as well as fines of £50 a time.
How much easier it would have been if I had not paid into any pension scheme. I would not have to spend that time in having to notify the Pension Service every month of the changes to the five private pensions.
Surprisingly if I did not have these pensions the pension credit payments would make up the difference and I would still get the same amount of money!

calcotti

racyguy said:

Surprisingly if I did not have these pensions the pension credit payments would make up the difference and I would still get the same amount of money!

That unfortunately is the outcome for those can save something but not enough to lift them completely out of the benefits system. The old Savings Pension Credit part at least gave some benefit from having made some private provision.

RetroRemix

Well, as you said she previously worked a full time job of 35 hours... so I'd say she has already paid into the system quite a lot. 

janer1967

@racyguy I am amazed you state that as this woman has children in secondary school she has no child care responsibilities 

As a parent of teen the child care doesn't stop and I certainly wouldn't want my child to be left alone 5 days a week from 230 to prob 6 pm till I got back from work . After school clubs end after primary school 

Caring doesn't stop as a parent and would be a struggle to do full time work with 3 children 

Being a parent to 3 kids is a job in itself as well as running the home etc 

racyguy

RetroRemix said:

Well, as you said she previously worked a full time job of 35 hours... so I'd say she has already paid into the system quite a lot. 

And that's the excuse you would give?
That there is this magic pot of money that she should be able to draw out of.

RetroRemix

Yes, she has contributed. Not just to the economy, but to the next generation too.